The Petitioner, a bacteriologist and clinical analyst, planned to found and run a consultancy/clinical laboratory in Missouri offering point-of-care metabolic screening (e.g., cholesterol/lipid testing) to healthcare providers, targeting rural and underserved areas to improve cardiovascular disease detection.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work, but whether the specific proposed endeavor has broad enough implications”

“a labor shortage in a field, on its own, does not establish a proposed endeavor's national importance”

“the business plan alone is not sufficiently probative to establish that her endeavor will have the intended economic effects by a preponderance of the evidence”

“the writer appears to be an expert on Colombia's administration of public health but not the United States”

“the Petitioner has not established the extent to which her proposed endeavor's POCT techniques differ from or improve upon those already available”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “it does not sufficiently explain the basis for its broader claims”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the information is not sufficiently probative to establish that her specific proposed endeavor is of national importance”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO noted the Director committed harmless errors (mischaracterizing endeavor as consulting-only, and misplacing prong-two evidence under prong one) but found these did not change the outcome under a harmless-error framework citing Matter of O-R-E- and Japarkulova. AAO also declined to address Petitioner's request for clearer USCIS guidance on the 'substantial positive economic effects' standard as beyond the scope of the appeal.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of O-R-E-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers